Wife Seeks Financial Assistance From PM Cares & State CM's Relief Fund: Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow

During the hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested for serving copy to him and further submitted if the matter could be taken up next week.

A Division Bench comprising Justice LN Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose upon Solicitor General's submission orally remarked that although it had told the petitioner that nothing could be done in the present matter but it had issued notice on August 6, 2021, to see if something could be done from the Union's end.

"We have already told the petitioner that nothing can be done but we had only served to see if something could be done from your end. We'll direct for serving a copy to you and hear the matter tomorrow," Justice LN Rao said to Solicitor General.

It was argued that the petitioner was entitled to relief on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience and that she had a legitimate expectation of help from the Government in a situation of financial distress for saving the life of her husband.

"Not providing necessary financial assistance to save the life of the husband of Petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same can be construed as inaction on part of the State in providing adequate health care to the citizens, particularly during the prevailing Covid-19 situation," the plea stated.

Mehra in her plea has averred that she herself physically visited the Prime Minister's Office with an application seeking a grant from PM Cares fund and PMNRF for defraying medical expenses of her husband, However, the staff at the counter did not take the application as the same was not accompanied with a recommendation letter from the Member of Parliament of her constituency.

She further averred that the staff at the counter told her that recommendation letter from the M.P. of her constituency was a mandatory document for processing the application.

"PM Cares Fund is a national endeavour to provide relief to the persons in a distress situation. The disbursement out of the said fund has to be done on a need basis and as per the Deed of trust which governs the fund. However, the said discretion has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and after proper application of mind. The case of the Petitioner is a fit case where disbursement ought to have been made by Respondent No.2," plea further stated.

The plea places reliance on the Top Court's judgement in Centre for Public Interest Litigation V. UOI 2020 SCC Online SC 652 wherein it was held that the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected.

Reliance has further been placed on Parmanand Katara V. UOI & Ors (1989) 4 SCC 286 wherein the Court had categorically held that it is the obligation of the State to preserve life and in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs. State of W.B. reported as (1996) 4 SCC 37 wherein the Court had held denial of medical treatment to patient in a Government Hospital for non-availability of bed as violative of Article 21 to aver that in the present case ECMO machine was not available in Bhopal AIIMS owing to which the petitioner's husband was airlifted through air ambulance and admitted to KIMS Hospital.

Case Title: Sheela Mehra v Union of India and Ors| W.P.(C) No. 825/2021